Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:43, 16 June 2006 view sourceAlienus (talk | contribs)7,662 edits →Statement by []: go for it.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:43, 16 June 2006 view source Johnleemk (talk | contribs)Administrators20,736 editsm →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0): fmtNext edit →
Line 531: Line 531:
*Accept. - ] 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC) *Accept. - ] 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
---- ----




=== Conspiracy theories in ] === === Conspiracy theories in ] ===

Revision as of 17:43, 16 June 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Dabljuh

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

, ,,

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Nandesuka

User:Dabljuh is an editor with strong feelings on the Circumcision article and a belief that a number of Misplaced Pages's core policies, such as WP:NOR, are fundamentally flawed and must be revised. In the course of expressing those feelings, he has engaged in many vicious personal attacks and disruption for which he has incurred numerous blocks. His most recent series of blocks began with a 72 hour block by User:PinchasC for personal attacks. Convinced that the block was unfair, Dabljuh began using numerous IP sockpuppets to evade the block (e.g. ), and continued to make changes to articles. On the basis of this evasion, the block was then extended by PinchasC to a week. User:W.marsh extended that block to a month on the basis of disruption, and indicated that he would reduce it back to a week if Dabljuh promised to stop evading blocks. Dabljuh refused, saying "I will not stop evading the ban.". This editor seems to have fundamental differences with core Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and believes that Misplaced Pages's administrative system is "Rotten to the core". His edits have shown a consistent pattern of egregious disruption, trolling, incivility, and personal attacks, and he has shown no willingness whatsoever to change or improve his behavior.

Statement by Dabljuh

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Note: Dabljuh is blocked right now, so either he can't defend himself or he has to evade his block to do so (which will be used as further justification for harming him.). Does anyone see a problem with this? I suggest you either unblock him so he can speak or inform him that he has permission to evade for the purpose of editing this area. Al 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He can send an e-mail to the ArbCom, who can post it here. -- Kim van der Linde 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Jpgordon

Why does ArbCom even need to consider this case? This is clearly disruptive behaviour that any admin can just block him for, and community bans have been issued for far less disruption. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

This immensely disruptive fellow is in no way an asset to the encyclopedia and does not conform to the minimum behavioral standards required of a wikipedian. I originally encountered this editor on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research and read as he continually advocated the removal of wikipedia's core policies and made very inappropriate comments. In paticular, his outspoken attitude includes a obsession with the launching of personal attacks, which according to his block log, has been considered blockable after multiple offenses.

After seeing this editor in action, I proceeded to take a look at his talkpage. Upon reading his various posts, I noted flagrant abuse of good faith, severe inability to abide by the simple requests of his peer wikipedians and an abundance of warnings. I thought this behavior seemed a little excessive given the silliness of his statements, so I went to his talkpage and left a note to cease (in response, he trollishly responded he didn't know what I was talking about). However looking at his contributions since arriving on Misplaced Pages, I wonder whether we shouldn't just get someone to consider blocking him permanently. I wouldn't endorse this decision completely at this point, but less serious cases have been.

He was blocked yet again after the instigation of another personal attack by PinchasC, which in the light of the patterns exhibited, was very appropriate. Immediately after the block of the account, he's resorted to flagrant abuse of various IP's to circumvent the block while leaving about trollish comments. As per the section on WP:AN/I, this isn't considered acceptable. As he engages in the random access of IP addresses for the sole reason of block evasion, he never uses one more than once as it will be blocked on the spot. As blocked editors are restricted from editting, his comments on any other medium other than the user talkpage are to be removed. I confess that "some blocks are very unfair" is somewhat true. However, circumvention isn't really a good idea and many level-headed editors are released from such mistakes. I'm sorry but that's wrong. That's not the way we do things at wikipedia.

His rfc is one of the most horrifying and disgraceful venues of behavior I have ever witnessed. After viewing this, it is obvious no good faith can be assumed here. He is a disruptive, egregious editor and he must be blocked.

This editor's entire actions on this project from his account's creation have been littered with disruptive behavior and the traits of classic trolling. Dabljuh is obviously not going to cease, and thus obvious action must be taken on this issue. I don't see any paticular sense in negotiating with this editor.

On another note, a smilar editor, Alienus may warrent a investigation from the committee. He/she commonly engages in the boderline commentary of trolling and unwanted behavior. I've no idea if this is a result of previous history or if its justly good faith. However, I've noted this editor never fails to defend the actions of disruptive users that comprimise the well-being of the encyclopedia on discussion pages, and this has given me great case for concern (see the comment below for elaboration). This along with comments of administrators and the false accusations of policy violation is something that I did not appreciate. -Zero 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please block me now for the horrible act of defending someone who is being wrongfully attacked. If you were a judge, you'd sentence the defense lawyer to life, right? You're only proving my point by showing hostility towards anyone willing to point out admin misbehavior. Al 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party, Alienus

This is not about Dabljuh in specific, but is instead part of an ongoing effort by the pro-circumcision editors and admins to eliminate those who oppose them.

Nandesuka and Jayjg have consistently used their admin rights to abuse editors, favoring long blocks for minor or imagined infractions, with any complaints used as an excuse to extend the block. Led by JakeW, they have already used an RFC to permanently ban one opponent, have an RFC in the works to ban another (me, as it happens), and are now trying to ban a third: Dabljuh. In addition to these three, there has also been a pattern of intervention by those who, unfortunately, cannot put aside their religious obligation to support circumcision (including Pinchas Cohen). This is parallel to the case of Catholics and abortion, where there is a natural tendency towards bias.

As I said, in the end, this has little to do with Dabljuh and a lot to do with an ongoing corruption on circumcision-related articles. Frankly, the accusations conflate bluntness and honesty with incivility and rebellion, while pandering to admins. The idea is that you will allow yourselves to be biased by the fact that Dabljuh is civil-minded and participates in discussions on policy, since he is questioning admins by doing so. Dabljuh isn't perfect or innocent, but he doesn't deserve being railroaded.

Nandesuka wants to use you to push his POV and he thinks you're stupid enough to allow yourself to be used. Prove him wrong by cancelling this arbitration. Start by forcing Jayjg to immediately recuse himself, as he is deeply involved. Al 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Neutrality of the word "liberate" re: Soviets retaking Ukraine in WWII

Involved parties

consider using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the context of (re)establishing the Soviet control over Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries during WWII as contradicting NPOV policy.


insist on using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the Soviet Union related WWII articles.


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

, , , , , , .

User SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was not notified because his talk page is protected. Admin action is needed.


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was proposed but it was refused by Grafikm fr . Mediation makes sense only if most of the involved parties agree to participate, this was not the case .

Request for comment was submitted .

A discussion at Village pump was initiated .

Statement by AndriyK

The word liberate is generally understood as to set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control . Or "to change from not having freedom to having freedom". Athough there is no doubt that Nazi occupation was oppressive and definitely can be characterize as "not having freedom", (re)taking the territories of Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries by the Red Army did not bring freadom to the people. Stalinist regime that was (re)established on those territories resulted in new repressions and one more artificial famine that claimed more than one million human lives. Millions of Ukrainians were deported to Siberia. Ethnic minorities (Crimean Tatars, Germans and others) were deported en masse, many people died on the way. Calling this "liberation" is extremely unneutral and can be even considered as offensive by the people who lost their relatives in the famine and the repressions.

The word "liberate" assumes sympathy to the Soviet Army, which contradicts to WP:NPOV stating that the neutral point of view "is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".

I propose using neutral wording like "Soviet Army took control over ..." or "advanced into a certain region" etc. But this proposal was not accepted by the group of users listed above. Morover these users were persistently removing the that was suposed to indicate the ongoing discussion and prevent the edit war. Then Grafikm fr requested protecting the article misinforming the admins that me was "the only one to claim it is POV" (in fact, a few other people stated their disagreement on the talk page , , , with the unnneutral wording used in the article). I think, such a behaviour of Grafikm fr and others is highly uncooperative and hardly helps to improve the Misplaced Pages content.

I request checking all involved parties by CheckUser: the style of Grafikm fr is very similar to that of Ghirlandajo. They might be sockpuppets.--AndriyK 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

On the request of the ArbCom member I provide here some evidence of user misconduct. Here are examples of edit warring: , , , , , , , . To avoid further edit warring, I proposed to keep the article text in the form prefered by the opponents but add the tag indicating and explaining the disagreement . But the tag was removed despite of the fact that the issue was not resolved. The new phase of the edit war was about removing the tag: , , . Please note, that Ghirlandajo explains his revert by "consensus". In fact, there was no consensus, instead there was an active discussion .

Here are a few examples of incivility: , , . (There word "svidomy" is used by some Russians to offend Ukrainians.)

Here Grafikm fr calls his opponents "hopelessly narrow-minded" .

Statement by Grafikm_fr

Since quite some time, there was a strong nationalistic uprising on Misplaced Pages, originating from various Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics, including but not limited to Ukraine, Poland and Baltic states. Quite a few editors thought it would be extremely funny to perform some POV-pushing and bend history in their own way, sending USSR history in the mud to please their new political masters. This has led to several RFCs and blocks of various people during these several months, along with quite a few mediation cabals. You will notice that the main protagonist of this RFAR, AndriyK was convicted of "aggressive Ukrainian nationalist position" by this very Arbitration Comitee last January. While I am absolutely certain that content should always supercede the contributor, it is nevertheless clear that I cannot take claims from him with the same degree of seriousness as a truly NPOV contributor.

As for the subject, however, the main issue here is the use of term "liberate" in mainstream research. As pointed out on Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper, where this discussion started and on Village Pump where it resumed, the word "liberate" is used by a load of both Western and Russian historians. Basically, should WP:NPOV prevail on WP:NOR. Meaning, if a term is considered POV by a minority but used in historical research, should it be discarded and thrown away??? The issue is debatable, but I don't think so. What is even more funny is that NPOV is hereby suggested by protagonists who are all but neutral in their own edits. My own stance on the subject is to use the word "liberate" for any territory or city belonging to URSS as of June 22, 1941 when the Soviet-German War started, since clearing your own territory from a foreign invader can only be considered liberation, IM(NS)HO.

As for Ghirlandajo, I deny completely being his sockpuppet. You can check me as much as you want, it will be quite difficult for you to prove that my French IP is the same thing as a Russian one...:))) -- Grafikm 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Oh yeah, and while we're discussing sockpuppets, I request a CheckUser on User:AndriyK and User:KPbIC, too. The style is disturbingly similar. -- Grafikm 23:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Habap

Odd. I only edited one article (Battle of the Lower Dnieper) involved in this dispute a few times, all on April 27th none of which involved the word liberate. I did, however, propose the use of a sentence which removed the word "liberate" to describe actions on the left shore and in Kiev:

During a four-month campaign, Soviet troops cleared the left shore of the Dnieper, crossed it in force, and created several bridgeheads on the right shore, advancing into Kiev as well.

I do admit, however, to voting in favor of Using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the article. on May 3rd. I suppose this is why I am included in the arbitration, but it seems very petty to me.

Let me also point out that Grafikm_fr did not reject mediation. He stated "I think there is no need to start a mediation case. OTOH, you seem to think so, so go for it". AndriyK is mis-characterizing his statement.

While I did study the Soviet Union in colege and do have use a Russian transliteration of my last name (Navarre), I freely admit to knowing next to nothing about the Eastern Front and do not edit articles on Misplaced Pages about it. So, this whole issue is of exceedingly little concern to me. --Habap 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Halibutt

In addition to what was written above, I have a few eurocents to add. Firstly, the disputed wording became a problem in the case of Lviv (see Talk:Lviv for details). The case of that city is particularly interesting, as those "liberated" were either instantly imprisoned by the NKVD (see Lwów Uprising for some general overview) or expelled from their homes and sent westwards (as was the case of practically all of local population).
This made me think that the very word is definitely too positively loaded to be used in such a context. In such a context the word "liberate" is as POVed as its' exact mirror, "to occupy" or "to conquer". Rather than choosing between either option here I suggested we use neutral, merely technical terms ("took control of", "took", "captured", "seized"...). To make long thing short: I'm against the usage of the term in any context but the most obvious (liberation from concentration camps, prisons, people taken hostage and then set free), as it is never NPOV when speaking about political changes - and especially one-sided. The alternative is to follow the rules of consistency and call every switch of ownership a liberation, which would be an absurd. Sadly, my proposal at the talk page has met with little but offences. But still, a compromise here is possible and I believe neutral terms could be acceptable to all.
Of course, it has been argued that there are authors who use the word "liberate" as a synonym to "push the German forces out during the WWII". However, they do not follow the rules of NPOV and are free to express their own opinions and sentiments towards this or that political or military change. Misplaced Pages is different - fortunately. The case of the article on Maładečna is quite instructive here. When some users raised the issue of the term "liberation" being POVed at Talk:Lviv, other users claimed that all is ok as long as sources use the term in such context. However, when I found a source that called the Polish capture of the town of Maładečna from the Soviets with the term, I was instantly reverted by the very same users to find the term so acceptable in the case of places captured by the Red Army. //Halibutt 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Deuar

I agree with the view of "liberate" taken by AndriyK and Halibutt. Using a definition like Grafikm fr's 1941 one, that takes into account purely what territory was claimed or controlled previously leads to absurd results. For example, had the Nazis stopped the Soviet advance and re-taken the General Gouvernment (i.e. most of pre-war Poland), they would have been "liberating" it by that definition.
As for the other editing-specific issues, I wouldn't know since I have not been active on the relevant articles for some time, partly because of people stubbornly defending agendas rather than just simply agreeing to a neutral wording like "re-took", or "recovered", etc. Simple, right? Deuar 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by tufkaa

I apologize because I rudely dropped out of this conversation when it started taking up a lot of time. (As well as because of the stubborn and somewhat hostile tone of some of the participants. While I am somewhat familiar with the past transgressions of the participants in this RfA, I was quite taken aback by some of the aspersions thrown about during the preceding discussions, if one could even refer to them as such.)
The matter as I saw it involves the the use of the word liberate in the context of Stalin's Soviet Union. I believed that the request to exchange the word was more than reasonable, especially since it expressed itself predominantly in the Talk pages. However, the opposing view did not seem amenable to any sort of dialogue wherein they would have to at the very least acknowledge supporting statements of fact made by those who where in favor of the change. It seems that those in favor retaining liberate were content with having the discussions dissolve into casting aspersions about people's nationalities and avoid actually debating the merits of a change.
Put quite simply, one secondary definition of the word liberate is as a military term that connotes the "re-taking" of occupied land by friendly forces. (That was an acknowledgement of a supporting fact for the opposing side.) All other definitions of the word link it with the concept of freedom. To use this word to describe a battle between Stalin-era Soviet forces and Nazi forces would be problematic at best. When presented with the use of a problematic word that has been acknowledged to be POV in most other circumstances, the retain that word solely on the basis of a secondary and less common definition, any editor I know would quickly swap the word out for something more fitting.--tufkaa 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved (?) Piotrus

First let me make a disclaimer that while I learned of this RfA just now and I believe I have not been engaged in most of the relevant discussions, I have participated by some, sparred or supported some of the involved eitors and have a view. Therefore how uninvolved I am is open to discussion. My take on the matter in question is that we can say "Soviets liberated sth" if we are talking about an non-Russian ethnic territory only if we proceed with immediate qualifier "from the Nazis". This means that I object the construction "Soviets liberated Lviv", but I have nothing agaisnt "Soviet liberated Lviv from the Nazis". There is no denying that Soviets fought the Nazis and took control over the territories they controled, liberating people from the Nazis, but there is also no denying that the Soviets most certainly overstayed their welcome there, and brought the Stalinist terror which is often equaled with that of the Nazi terror. Just saying "liberated" and ending the sentence there imples that the Soviets brought liberty - certainly something that Soviets did not do, instead becoming the occupiers themselves almost everywhere they advanced. Thus the word 'liberate' here is not accurate, and as the term is wrought with non-neutrality I'd advise that it is very carefuly used in such contexts. Consider also that the word that requires qualifiers and even in many cases additional sentences/paragraph explaining what Soviets did after the "liberation", which many editors see as necessary to counter the usage of the positive word liberation should be best avoided, simply to avoid going off topic in various articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well put. PatrickFisher

Statement by uninvolved party Sean Black

As far as I can determine, this is strictly a disagreeement over conductcontent. There are no allegations of user misconduct above, simply two seperate groups of editors who disagree over the use of the word "liberate" and it's deritaves in articles and/or article titles. Unless I am misreading, or there is some undisclosed evidence, then this is simply not a matter for arbitration and should be rejected out of hand. Even if there is some unmentioned conduct issue here, there has been little to not use of the dispute resolution proccess and as such is not ready for arbitration.

In conclusion, this request seems to be wholly without merit at this time.--SB | T 23:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I know threaded comments are bad form, but I think you meant "content", not "conduct". And yes, as currently framed this seems to be outside the ArbCom's purview, whatever the merits of either side. PurplePlatypus 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oy! Choose the incorrect word and I more or less contradicted my entire point. Thanks for the correction, PurplePlatypus, my idiocy floweth forth and it must be bottled up by someone.--SB | T 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by involved party Ukrained

I couldn't agree more with Andriyk, Halibutt and especially with Deuar about the dispute. On my involvement, and also on the misfiling (?) of this RfAr: I was replacing liberat... with take control (etc.) several times in Soviet partisans, as part of my general de-opinionizing edits. The reasons for these particular replacements were already discussed en masse by other users, so it wasn't a distinctive part of my discussions there. But the users from above-mentioned pro-Russian group were reverting my liberate/take over changes (as well as other changes) several times, sometimes with furious personal attack comments. Isn't that a clue to the right filing of the case here?

As for this discussion, I'd like to notice that AndriyK and other users that share my view presented the case civilly, clearly and shortly. But the above objections by Grafikm fr contain a generalizing personal-attacking approach to the case, not to mention promoting of a blatant pro-Soviet, anti-Baltic/Polish/Ukrainian/West POV. Will the case be rejected or not, I think ArbComm should warn this user of uncivility in case discussions. Ukrained 06:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by involved party PatrickFisher

I ask that you not reject this case of content arbitration, as many parties to this dispute are emotionally involved and it needs to be authoritatively settled. Disciplinary action is not obviously called for, and this is not an issue for Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid. (Note to Tony Sidaway: This request refers to the use of the word liberate to describe a specific event. There does not seem to be any question that is is appropriate to say that the Allies liberated France in WWII, for example.) It is an endless, political debate: Kuban_Cossack, for example, is apparently a Russian partisan - note the Romanov flag and use of the term svidomi, which is equivalent to jingoistic and is specific to Ukrainian nationalism. It does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and a decision here should end it.

My position on the issue is that liberate is not strictly neutral. Just because other kids are doing it does not make it ok. As I said in Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper:

here are passionate differences of opinion here, so we should aim for a correspondingly high level of NPOV. The word liberate is defined as, "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." When you liberate something, you are granting liberty and, hence, breaking shackles. Yes, the foreign control part is strictly accurate, but the other meanings give the term a strong connotation that there was relatively greater oppression prior to the action. This is a controversial implication that may be examined, but should not be allowed to sneak in the back door.

Please end this, one way or another. - PatrickFisher 08:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by involved party User: Zello

I noticed the discussion on the Request for Comments page. I'm not Ukrainian or Russian but I took part in the debate because I think the use of the word "liberation" contradicts to wikipedia NPOV policy. As a Hungarian I presented the situation in Hungary where before 1989 the Soviet occupation was obligatory called felszabadulás - liberation. After the democratic change it turned out that most of average Hungarian people had very bad memories about the Russian troops (killing, looting, raping the women etc) and they feel the word insulting. After a national debate the word was mainly dropped by mainstream historical literature and media (its national holiday on 4 April was abolished). I suppose that the situation can be the same in Ukraine, taking into consideration the crimes of the Stalinist dictature for example Holodomor in the 1930s. I noticed that the debate is emotionally very heated for the involving parties. Zello 13:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by involved party User:Kuban kazak

First of all I would like to approach this question rationally. There are two destinct parts to this abitration

  1. Re-writting Ukrainian History
  2. The actions of some editors to settle scores against the Russian community.

I will adress the two separately. First of all during the Second World War prior and after Ukraine was a recognised part of the Soviet Union, where it was a Soviet Socialist Republic that formed in 1918 (prior to any of the short-lived non-Soviet Ukrainian states) and was the founding republic upon the creation of the USSR in 1922. Thus claiming that the Ukrainian SSR was not representetive of the Ukrainian people is beyond absurdity. During the whole history of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians were on par with all other Soviet nationalities, this included the Red Army in the Second World War, which was roughly 17% of the population. Ie. in most cases out of five-six soldiers one was Ukrainian. To assume that 1.36 million Ukrainian men did not fight for their country is beyond absurdity as well. And their percentage of the Red Army was not class-mixed either, and included even the highest ranking Marshals (eg. Rodion Malinovsky). In retrospect I would like to point out that the Soviet Leaders Nikita Khruschev and Leonid Brezhnev who ruled the USSR from 1954-64 and 1964-82 were also Ukrainian. Finally the Ukrainian SSR was a founding member of the United Nations.

During the German occupation Ukraine was viewed as living space for Aryan colonisers. Recall the massacres of Babi yar and thousands of villages that were torched to the ground. When Ukraine was liberated, there were hardships (and I would not deny, repressions) in the USSR, but all nationalities of the Soviet Union shared them, not only Ukrainians. The famine of 1949 was swept throughout the country, not only Ukraine. In fact if you take the nationalities of the Gulag camps, you will get the same 17% Ukrainian portion of them.

Now this is of course mirrored in most of western, non-political historic/military publications. The vast majority of western authors now that the descisive battles of the Second World War were Stalingrad, Kursk and operation Bagration. Therefore having double standards for American liberation of Paris and Soviet Liberation of Kiev, is absurd and disrespectful to the millions of veterans (particulary those in Ukraine) and 26.6 million Soviet people that died in destruction of Nazism.

Finally officially Kiev acknowledges the, even after the orange revolution, and May 9th (victory day) is a massive public holiday. (Here are some pictures of Kievans celebrating , I doubt that those veterans would have a second opinion wether liberation of Kiev was liberation or not)

This brings us to the second point. Misplaced Pages until about last autumn was a tranquil place were historic articles were written keeping the International opinion in mind. In about October comes a User:AndriyK. Thousands of reverts, locked page moves, vote frauding and no articles written become his trademarks... Eventually we, mostly Russian and Ukrainian editors, mounted an arbitration against him. Despite some cunning excuses he was banned for a month. Upon his return he once again returned to his old habit, like re-starting settled disputes (eg. Russian Architecture) where once again endless reverts of inserting tags continued. And Battle of the Lower Dnieper where we arrive to now. However this time, the admin were quick to respond and locked both articles. (Yet he sees this as unfair)

User:AndriyK's POV is what many Ukrainians call Svidomy. Directely translated as consious, it is used to reffer to a narrow group of people whose main area of concern is to maximize Ukraine's break with Russia in all possible cases and scenarios. AndriyK made wikipedia also part of this "process" and other editors picked up using insults, lies, Hardcore POV pushing as well as other nasty methods. These people are almost impossible to work constructively with. What's worse is that they claim to represent the "true Ukrainian community". However at the same time there are a number of Ukrainian editors that are fully respectable and very useful to wikipedia. I shall name a few for their countless contributions User:Fisenko, User:DDima, User:Irpen, User:Faustian, User:Vervin and many many others. Sure occasionally we stumble onto a dispute, however as opposed to people like User:Ukrained, User:AlexPU and of course User:AndriyK it is actually possible to talk exclussively about the problems and not politicising them like the latter users do EVERY TIME.

In the context of this dispute, their claim to history is that Ukrainians were not of course fighting for the Red Army, which was nothing but an invader. They use another historical fact. In the very west of the country, the Soviet Union was not as popular and these territories, although ethnically Ukrainian were not particulary fond of Soviet Union, as they have lived in it for less than 2 years when the USSR annexed Eastern Poland in 1939. As a result, SOME (not all, and unfortunately for svidomy not even the majority) of the people refused to struggle in the partisans. A nationalist group (allied with Germany btw) formed what is known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a guerilla force which not only managed to ethnically clense all of the Polish minority, but to also remain largely unnoticed by German reports as opposed to the several million-strong Ukrainian partisan movement. Thus really questioning just how much did they actually fight against the Germans...Anyway after the Red Army liberated Ukraine, they continued to carry out insurgent attacks, but again, by late 1940s were hardly of any attention. The Soviet Encyclopedia gives more attention Basmanchestvo in Central Asia than UPA. So to speak their real impact on Ukarinian history is indeed close to neglictable as opposed to millions of other events, in particular the Battle for the Lower Dnieper. This however is not the POV that the Svidomy try to impose, and despite the fact that official Kiev still refuses to accept some sad survivors as veterans, despite the fact that Nuremberg process brands nazi collaborators, these sorry teenagers stop at nothing to discredit the truth about history, even in Misplaced Pages. The only people that actively oppose them are the majority of Ukrainan and Russian wikipedians.

In conclusion this RfAr, is IMO nothing but a revenge attempt for previous times when truth and justice put them out of their misery. I am sorry for making the passage so long, but this "request" has much bigger roots than they appear. --Kuban Cossack 12:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This application resembles a misfiled request for a checkuser investigation. AndriyK may have a case for listing "liberate" on Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid but has not yet (according to my diligent but not exhaustive checks) pursued it there. Misplaced Pages is a labyrinth, so that is no reflection on AndriyK. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

Iloveminun

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Here User:Iloveminun informed. He is currently blocked and I have suggested that he respond in email to an Arbitrator or an unrecused clerk.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tony Sidaway

This user has engaged in personal attacks, vandalism, disruption of deletion debates, inappropriate nomination of pages for deletion, and sock puppetry for the purpose of block evasion. I have moved for a community ban but this was strongly opposed by editors whom I know and trust. They know his edits and, while condemning his behavior, believe that banning would be inappropriate. Thus I bring the case before the Committee. In view of the comments to the proposal for a community ban, I think that probation and general probation may work well. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement/Comment by Sceptre

I should make at least a comment as I've run across ILM quite a few times in the last two weeks. As Tony has pointed out, he has been disruptive. He also seems to be stalking HighwayCello, if it is the correct term, to the point of sheer obnoxiousness. While HC may have initiated this conflict, ILM is taking it too far, especially with the cross-userspace move. Will (message me!) 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by HighwayCello

I never did anything to warrant such attack, the only thing I did to ILM was block his sockpuppet and try to stop seriously comprosing the integrity of Misplaced Pages's articles. ILM has been harassing me because of this. Highway 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by HighwayCello

I guess I'm the one that can tell the other side of this story, the harassment that's just referred to as that, opposed to what it was. ILM didn't like me for goodness knows why, I was wary of him for a while, which led me to think that ILM could be using socks (you know what I mean ;). I caught the sockpuppet, and it has just escalated from there, ILM has tried to tell everyone not to trust me, inform everyone that I shouldn't be an admin or harass me or my friends here in general. (A full collection of harrassment and vandalism can be found at User:HighwayCello/Minun). It is true I have been "following" ILM, but I don't see reverting unintentional damage done to templates can be consider stalking, or even creating a template to help him with a manual job he was doing, as harmful stalking (I would do the same with any other unsteady editor).

ILM has shoved me to the point of breaking down and almost leaving the project on several occassions, even leaving harmful comments about me at the top of his userpage and deleting my "shield", by moving it to his own userspace and speedy tagging it. ILM has badmouthed me both on his talk page, as well as WP:AN, and harassed (shouting at, moaning at or generally annoying with his consistent winging) User:Actown, User:Celestianpower, User:Smurrayinchester and User:A Man In Black. I just want to be left alone, I don't know if I'll ever get back the trust I've lost from some editors because of this ordeal, I don't want to lose any friends. Highway 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by A Man In Black

ILM doesn't seem to me to be irredeemable, but (s?)he is determined to flout any advice, instruction, or corrective action. I've not interacted with ILM much since a fiasco about how to use fair-use images (which wasn't resolved until I protected the page and threatened ILM with a block), and (s)he has been merciless to HighwayCello for reasons I can't begin to imagine.

I urge corrective action, hopefully with some sort of injunction to put a stop to ILM's harassment of HC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Clerk notes

As a party to this case, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Veselin Topalov

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

In 2005, FIDE Chess Champion Veselin Topalov was accused of cheating during the San Luis World Championship. This has been widely reported in the chess media, and Dionyseus would like to remove all mention of this cheating.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
('If not, then explain why that would be fruitless')
  • Talk Page ]
  • Request for Third Opinion ] - Have tried this twice - with but one exception, all third parties have agreed with me (Danielpi)
  • Mediation Cabal ] - (Dionyseus has violated compromise agreement)

Links to edit war: ] ]]]]]]]] Dionyseus broke mediation compromise agreement. I have ceased my part in edit war pending arbitration, however I do believe that I am correct, and furthermore that I have support with other editors. It seems this will continue without a definite decision.Danny Pi 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel Pi

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

I have provided citation showing that the accusation of computer assisted cheating was widely reported in the chess media. Dionyseus has declared all of these (widely recognized and highly regarded) sources as illegitimate. He continually distorts facts, misquotes users (including myself and the mediator), and unilaterally edits without consultation or consensus. He has (I believe) deliberately misrepresented my position on a number of occasions, and he baldly disregards authority. He has previously accused me of sending him death threats (I hasten to add this is false), claiming to have my email address and IP (he posted these without my permission on my talk page, however he was incorrect about both my IP and email, so this is of no particular concern). I have found it quite impossible to deal with these "tactics", and would prefer to have this matter settled once and for all. I would simply like the facts stated objectively in the article that Veselin Topalov was accused of cheating during the championship. I am not claiming that he actually did cheat- simply that the accusation was made.

Ideally, I would like my original sentence included in the article: "Furthermore, allegations of computer assisted cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 have become widespread, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that Topalov cheated." This would include links to online sources. I believe this phrasing is factually correct and objective. It does not imply whether or not the accusations are true or false, merely that they have been claimed. Incidentally, the accuser was a participant in that 8-player tournament, making the claim a credible (although not necessarily true) claim.

I have repeatedly attempted to take the high road. I requested Third Opinion twice. I requested Mediation twice. I allowed Dionyseus's edit to remain online pending mediation. And once again, while seeking arbitration, I am willing to let Dionyseus's edit remain online pending resolution. However, I do want it noted that I have attempted to concede these things in the interest of achieving compromise, whereas Dionyseus has made (in my opinion) no concessions whatsoever.Danny Pi 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We were not "both wrong." You may feel free to check the wiki articles on grammar to verify that I formed syntactically correct sentences. Furthermore, everyone on the discussion page agreed with me- and not a single person claimed I was in error. And I am not exaggerating, RV's where grammar was modified by Dionyseus: I also think it would behoove you to keep your comments in your statement section, Dionyseus. And I would also like to add this one last piece of support: the following editors have indicated support for including the cheating allegations in the article: Subseven, LinuxDude, 70.23.236.205, SWATJester Aim, Supinejsupine. The only support that Dionyseus has received has been from Ryan Delaney, who I believe is demonstrably biased and non-objective.Danny Pi 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dionyseus

DanielPi did not present evidence of a user conduct issue like edit warring or incivility (and not content). For example, the first link he provides as evidence of an edit war cannot be used because as you can see it is a self revert and I mistakenly moved the allegation from the external links section to the main article which is not what I would want in the first place. The fourth one is also a self revert. The sixth one is also a self revert. This matter is a content issue (DanielPi wants to include the allegation, I don't), not an issue of edit warring or civility.

The cheating allegation was not widely reported at all, Daniel's claim has already been disproven in the mediation case months ago. Please look at the discussion page and the mediation case, Daniel's claims that I am an irresponsible editor are false, in fact it is Daniel who has repeatedly resorted to name calling. Before that mediation case, the Topalov page was at peace for many months until Daniel showed up and repeatedly inserted the cheating allegation into the article. In the mediation case we agreed to restrict mention of the cheating allegation only to the external links section, and the Topalov page was at peace again. A few weeks later I thought that after Topalov's impressive win at Mtel 2006 in which he won the last four games in a row against world class grandmasters, Daniel would no longer care about the wacky cheating allegation so I removed the mention, but I saw that Daniel still cared about it so I placed it back as per mediation agreement. Daniel however was not satisfied with that and attacked me which prompted me to search for information about Soltis, the author of the article that contains the cheating allegation, and I found evidence that Soltis cannot be considered a reliable source. According to respected chess writer International Master John Watson, Soltis has a tendency to exagerrate to put drama and excitement into his articles, he is also known for using unreliable sources and passing them off as being reliable .

Furthermore the person who made the allegation has remained anonymous. He has remained anonymous for eight months! No one other than Daniel has mentioned the allegation for over half a year. If Topalov is accused of cheating again and the accuser identifies himself, and the accusation is widely report, then and only then would I support the inclusion of the cheating allegation.

Now as for the death threats, I did indeed receive those two death threats from Daniel, I can provide the IP and the emails if requested. Dionyseus 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

I was the mediator in the aforementioned mediation cabal. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As for the cheating allegations: can we please get some citations on that? Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/1/0/0)

User:8bitJake

8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving leave the project entirely.

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In my statement, I link to the results of a mediation request w/User:Dan100 from December of 2005. I am unable to find the diff for the actual request at this moment, but I will add it as soon as I'm able to. Mediation request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . . 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson , eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire . 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ("Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries (Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ( ). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly.

Statement by Bazzajf

I find this RFA a futile ego-driven exercise. It is evident that 8BitJake has a useful contribution to make if you look at his list of contributions. It is churlish of you to take a dispute to this arena. Disputes over content of an article should take place in the discussion page of the relevant article, you are as guilty of as many reversions as himself on disputed articles. I find your recourse to this action pathethic and not worthy of further investigation as it reflects a personal witch-hunt on your part without any substance of note. I move that you apologise to 8bitjake for taking this action and desist from your ill-conceived and foolhardy finger-pointing forthwith.

Bazzajf 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 69.178...

I have no knowledge of 8BitJake or his edits, but I take issue with badlydrawnjeff's statement above, "...driving an editor (User:FRCP11) to leave the project". Also see FRCP11's prior page. I agree with Bazzajf's assessment of FRCP11's demeanor ("galling", "self-righteous", "...imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly") here. FRCP11 appeared to self destruct with obliging help (strict enforcement) from several admins after many, many tirades. I have had extremely contentious edit situations on alt med, and although FRCP11 responded with some formal civility, he was among the worst to repeatedly rush past simple facts, without investigation, to try to cram his opinion down without any meaningful discussion, most intransigently, and in preference to previous, other far better qualified, vociferous critcs of orthomed. Apparently FRCP11's opinion and prejudgement are more important than basic subject definition in the articles (according to his points in talk).--69.178.41.55 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

Irishpunktom

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
  • Here notification of Irishpunktom. A one week block recently imposed has been lifted to enable him to respond.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)
Chronic edit warrior who shows no sign of improvement over a long period (block log).

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Irishpunktom has been blocked about a dozen times for edit warring--around half of those blocks in the past five months. His chronic misbehavior is soaking up administrator resources and is probably having a severe net bad effect on the articles he edits. The only question in my mind is whether or not a probation or similar remedy would improve his behavior to an acceptable level. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Irishpunktom

Dispute resolution = Block log? - Each case must looked at on its own merits. Tony's assesment of what is "probably" happening appears in fact to be the opposite of what has happened. While I have "revert war"ed too much, each case must still be judged on the circumstances. Do you want me to go through them ?--Irishpunktom\ 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Raphael1

I know Irishpunktom from the Islamophobia article and therefore I can attest, that many of his reverts have been against subtile cases of vandalism. It seems pretty obvious to me, that an editor who puts this on his user page, has no genuine interest in improving the Islamophobia article. Another problem Irishpunktom has to face is Wikistalking from Netscott, who openly planned to attack Irishpunktom to get him censured as a Misplaced Pages editor. See also: Raphael1 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Jeremygbyrne

FYI, whatever this was seems to have been permanently removed. &#0151; JEREMY 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Irishpunktom

This is a reply to the statement by Jeremygbyrne above

Jeremy, Karl added this link to his homepage, with the summary "Muslims, we're soo sorry!!", or similar. --Irishpunktom\ 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Karl Meier

I agreed to remove the above link that Irishpunktom mention from my userpage months ago, and I have already admitted that it was a mistake to place it there. However, more recently, and several months after I agreed to have the link removed, Irishpunktom and Raphael1 has continued to make endless and very serious personal attacks against me on talkpages, in editsummaries and elsewhere, using the external link as an excuse to do so. Irishpunktom first ended his endless personal attacks against me, after he was warned by an admin that he would be blocked if he continued this behavior. If it is of any interest to the ArbCom and these proceedings I would like present evidence regarding his campaign of personal attacks against me. (see the report I filed on this problem here) I might also add evidence re his incivility when addressing other people that he doesn't like, such as when he labeled Danish non-Muslim's "Kaffirs" in an article that he was editing. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by David

I have found Irishpunktom to be an extremely difficult editor to work with, even when we happen to share broadly the same point of view. Specifically, when he dislikes an edit, he will often revert without explanation, and if reverted, he reverts again. While quick to castigate other editors for failing to use article talk pages, he rarely outlines his problems there, and when he does, it is in a combative way.

I appreciate that Irishpunktom has contributed useful articles and edits about Islam and I would not myself favour a lengthy block from editing, but his style of editing is aggressive and time-consuming. The ArbCom may wish to consult a draft RFC which I did not get round to filing due to pressure of work. I am considering adding myself to this RFAr as an involved party. David | Talk 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison

On 5 June I blocked Irishpunktom for disruptive edit warring on Peter Tatchell. He presented what seemed to me a good case that he wasn't the only one edit warring, so I unblocked him and protected the page instead. Discussion, cautions, and warnings on ANI followed., .

On 8 June, Karl Meier told me that Irishpunktom was edit warring on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I checked and found that to be the case. I blocked Irishpunktom for one week. On his talk page, he said he thought that was harsh but fair. At Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I unblocked him shortly after that so he could respond to the arbitration.

I think Irishpunktom has come to regard his frequent 3rr blocks as the cost of doing business. It's hard to imagine that any other form of dispute resolution would be useful. Tom Harrison 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Jersey Devil

I have not had direct participation in editing articles which Irishpunktom edits but I have had several encounters with him and have found him to be aggresive and sometimes uncivl. In one dispute in which I had with another user which he objected to I showed him diffs of the aforementioned user incorrectly claiming "vandalism" in edit summaries. To this Irishpunktom responded in my talk page with the header "Stop being a Vandal" stating that I was lying about those false "rv vandalism" edit summaries (you can look at them and judge for yourself). Until now I was really unaware of any other problems with this user aside from occasional hostility but after reviewing his blocking log and the revert wars in which he has participated despite being warned several times before not to I do think some action should be taken. The simplest solution would just be to give admins the right to give this user an extended block for any other revert wars in which he participates.--Jersey Devil 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sikandarji

I have worked with Irishpunktom on Babur and Mughal Empire, and have never had any problems, even though we don't always fully agree about certain issues. We had a lengthy dispute with User:Tajik which was discussed extensively (very extensively)! on the Talk page, without descending into revert-warring or abuse on his part. Irishpunktom's style can be a little abrasive at times, but he is a bonafide wikipedian who works hard to improve articles, and has provided extensive references to scholarly work in his edits on Babur. Sikandarji 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Bazzajf

User:Sikandargi states "Irishpunktom's style can be a little abrasive at times, but he is a bonafide wikipedian who works hard to improve articles". This statement is laughable. Some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee, this guy is obviously not a bonafide Wikipedian, he is a "Wikipedian" whose only interest is to advance his own political view and impose it on various articles. WP could do without him, he's a numpty, plain and simple. Bazzajf 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Second statement by Sikandarji

This is a reply to the statement by Bazzajf above

Look, I can only comment on my own experience of him, which as I say, does not indicate to me that there are any grounds for banning him. I am by no means an uncritical admirer of Islam, and, for instance, we disagree on the validity and coherence of much of Edward Said's writing, but he has never attempted to vandalise or otherwise revert my changes to that page. Looking at some of his edits on other pages, it seems to me that some of his more implacable opponents could learn a few lessons in the importance of courtesy and reasoned argument, rather than making knee-jerk assumptions about an edit on the basis of who made it. Sikandarji 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cool Cat

I do not know much about Irishpunktom's contributions, however I had first hand experience with Karl Meier on a variety of topics. He has been found to be stalking me as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. After the case was closed I had to tolerate more stalking. This edit probably summirises it. Karl did eventualy left me alone to seek 'more easy prey' as I had/have an arbitration case restricting them to a degree as well as mentors to talk to.

In any case I had made a quick review of Karl's edits. Here are my findings:

  • Karl revert wars frequently, always however just short of that 4th revert tricking the system. On one coasion he was reverting User:Anonymous editor on Ali Sina . I do not care about the content dispute but a post on some random forum is hardly article worthy.
  • He is for example quite active on 3rr page reporting a selective group of editors he 'targets'. He reported Irishpunktom on an article he wasnt editing at the time. Did he accidentaly stumbled upon the article and hecked history to notice the rever war? Was the report a coincidence?
  • I would not call such a link on ones userpage a peace offering. Userpages supposed to help us write a better encyclopedia, not a tool for trolling/infuriating people. Having sucha link on ones userpage while editing articles such as Islamophobia is just asking for troble.
  • One other thing that should be considered is this. Karl had accidentaly noticed my post here only 10 minutes after my post... I do not have that kind of response time even with my realtime script highlighting editis wikipediawide.

--Cat out 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by BhaiSaab

Karl Meier has revert warred with many editors of the Muslim Guild, including myself. I'm not saying that only he is to blame, but Irishpunktom's interactions with Karl shouldn't be taken against him, considering Karl's interaction with others. I agree with all of the statements made above by Cool Cat. BhaiSaab 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Striver

I have edited with Irishpunktom several times, since we are both editors on the Islam related articles. I appreciate his work, specialy when he was one among many that saw Jersey Devils rampant afd's on the Islam related article, only on the grounds that i hade created them + some invalid excuse. That was the first time they met, and Jersey Devil startd to get a bad eye towards him. Karl Meyer is well known for his anti-Islam stance. In short, my view is that Karl Meyer and his friend have decided to "get rid of" Irishpunktom, or to use their own words: "censured as a Misplaced Pages editor", probably since he is one of the few Islamic editors involved in the articles Karl Meyer is involved, but of course, working against their aim of turning this into anit-Islamipedia. So, since Irishpunktom has had a problem keeping from reverting once to much, they are trying to "get" their weakest adversary. To be honest, i would never had even suspected that Irishpunktom had been blocked even once, and that makes me woneder if all his blocks are not a result of loosing temper in some criticaly controversial articles. We need more people that stand in the way of turning wikiepedia into anti-islamipedia. And that is a real problem, i still find the occasional newcomer to the Islam related projects complain about anti-Islamic edits. That problem is so severe that i personaly do not even bother to try NPOV those sections, not even when asked to help. Im glad that there still are some people how do try. What Irishpunktom needs is a mentor to help him avoiding doing things that get him blocked.--Striver 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Conspiracy theories in History of South Africa in the apartheid era

Involved parties

User:Phase4, User:Kuratowski's Ghost, edit war in History of South Africa in the apartheid era under "Destablization and Sabotage" subsection regarding the inclusion of the text:

Although South Africa agreed to cease supporting anti-government forces, their support of RENAMO continued. In 1986 President Machel himself was killed in an air crash in mountainous terrain near the South African border after returning from a meeting in Zambia. South Africa was suspected of sabotaging Machel's Soviet-built presidential aircraft.

On December 21 1988 UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was en route to the signing ceremony in New York, whereby South Africa was to cede control of Namibia to the UN, after over a decade of defiance of Security Council Resolution 435. Carlsson was among 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland. Because foreign minister Pik Botha and a 22-strong South African delegation were due to travel on the doomed flight — but cancelled their booking at short notice — some also suspect South African involvement in the PA 103 sabotage.

Statement by User:Kuratowski's Ghost

User:Phase4 insists on including the above conspiracy theory text at the end of the section. It includes original research claiming South Africa continued to aid RENAMO after the Nkomati Accords. It includes weaselly repetition of the conspiracy theory that SA somehow sabotaged Machel's plane, already receiving questionably large coverage in the Samora Machel article. It repeats the conspiracy theory that SA was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing already given ample coverage in the article Pan Am Flight 103. These fringe conspiracy theories do not belong in the section, at most there could be a sentence mentioning conspiracy theories of ongoing sabotage by SA linking to the articles dealing with them, but it makes no sense to give detailed repetitions of these bizarre claims as if these are substantiated cases uncovered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and / or other Commissions.

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/1/0)

Editor Abuse, Threats, and Uncivil Conduct

Involved parties

User:DV8_2XL
User:Ewrobbel

DV8 2XL has been abusive, threatening, and uncivil in mediation case and before.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User_talk:DV8_2XL
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats

Statement by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

Review of DV8 2XL's remarks in the mediation case will show a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs)

This editor has been attempting to insert a link to his website where he sells books he has written and self-published. A quick look at his contribs will show that he has only made edits on this one topic. Discussed with the editor who is complaining on his talk page here: ; Discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here:; went to the Mediation Cabal the first time here: (mediator e-mailed a response explaining spamlinking, case closed); returned to Mediation_Cabal here: ; and finally in edit summaries here: , here: , and here: .
This Request for arbitration is just a transparent attempt to game the system and stop me from keeping his spam off Misplaced Pages. I do not think this issue is worth the committee's time and at any rate Ewrobbel has not exhausted all other dispute resolution options. --DV8 2XL 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Followup by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

I am not arguing the case. I lost. That's over. I am accusing DV8 2XL of being abusive, threatening, and uncivil in the mediation case and before. His behavior shows a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree with the AN/I statements that User:Ewrobbel is linkspamming and self-promoting. In particular, he's been adding references to his own books to Transistor radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crystal radio receiver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and links to his web site under Walkman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As far as I can tell from both the links and the discussions linked above, the only work of utility to Misplaced Pages from these would be the photograph of various old Walkman models.

Skimming several of the discussions involved, I don't see any serious justification for User:Ewrobbel's statement that threats are being made. User:DV8 2XL stated his intentions to continue removing linkspam in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. In my past interactions with User:DV8 2XL, I've only ever seen him act in good faith. While I think he could have phrased his statements more diplomatically, I get the strong impression that User:Ewrobbel is using this as a delaying tactic in order to continue self-promoting. The discussions on AN/I and elsewhere make it clear that classifying the edits as linkspam has substantial community support.

This has been through a mediation attempt and was discussed at length on AN/I. I don't think further attempts at dispute resolution would work. User:Ewrobbel brought this to ArbCom; let him reap the results. --Christopher Thomas 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: As far as I can tell from the mediation case and elsewhere, the claims of attacks and threats are baseless. The statements that User:Ewrobbel considers "threats" were along the lines of, "I will continue to remove edits that violate Misplaced Pages policy". --Christopher Thomas 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion... Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

No one is claiming "attacks" as Christopher Thomas misstates. DV8 2XL is simply accused of abusive, threatening, and uncivil treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator. I trust the arbitrators will be more careful in their reading of the accusation and their review of the mediation case than Christopher Thomas has been.--Ewrobbel 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A Culture of Rudeness? Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

When DV8 2XL tells me "don't let the door hit you on the way out" on my talk page, and that (among many other things) is considered by admins SimonP and James F. as "at worst a bit curt," I can only suggest that there is a culture of rudeness in these back pages of Misplaced Pages which many seem so steeped in they don't even notice it anymore.--Ewrobbel 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Election

The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?

Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) . He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest .-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding. :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help." - from WP:AP. I imagine this is the reason. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, Fred Bauder (who said it was his view that mediation should work) or another admin should have referred the dispute to the Mediation committee. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But they are in no way required to. See "may" not "will." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Fred's comment read ""There is a suggestion by RyanFreisling that mediation might be productive, see his talk page. I think that may be a much more productive solution. Having the arbitration committee take the sheep shears to the articles is not going to make for a very nice haircut. "
For you to claim that the 'Misplaced Pages process has spectacularly failed', don't you think you should have followed the process as closely as possible? Wouldn't that have been necessary for you to make that claim? How can Misplaced Pages process have failed, if it hasn't been attempted in good faith? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the Arbitrators even read the proposed decisions talk page?

Fred Bauder is the only arbitrator who I've ever seen make a comment on the proposed decision talk page. from how they are blatently misrepresenting my beliefs, and even my statements... -- assuming good faith here, i can only assume that they simply 'do not read said talk page.

This logical conclusion is derived from the following (besides the stated assumption of good faith):

So in light of this, what I want clarified is: are the arbitrators who have already voted on what i believe (and i'm rather new to the idea of having a select committee decide what my beliefs are for me) going to read and consider the statements of the parties, or make judgements and put words in their mouths without giving the people involved a fair hearing (and that means actually listening)? I actually do want an answer to this question. It's not just rhetorical. I seriously don't know the answer and I want this issue clarified. Kevin Baas 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we read them.
James F. (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It may help instill user confidence in the Arbitration process if a comment or two were provided when a decision is made. Thanks! Dr1819 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat/Rex071404

As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.

Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Misplaced Pages process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Rex/Merecat has spawned more sockpuppets: . Arbcomm please advise what we are to do about this. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Ryan and Mr. Tibbs have not explained the status clearly, this message will: 1) User:Merecat did edit John Kerry. 2) If Merecat was a alternate acccount for User:Rex071404, then Merecat can be deemed a "sockpuppet" and blocked on that basis, because Rex was not supposed to edit JK. However, if you read the full dialog on this (here), you will see that the check user policy is being abused. The users which Tibbs refers to are Neutral arbiter and Wombdpsw, neither of whom have transgressed in any manner. For this reason, if they are indeed alternate accounts, (which is permissible - see here), the Tibbs's drive to "out" them is an egregious violation and misuse of check user. In fact, the original check user which was done that "outed" Merecat may not even have been valid on it's face as the request may not have been properly founded. Be that as it may, Merecat is blocked by User:Katefan0 who has quit the wiki. But Rex is also blocked - by User:Cyde. However, the block against Rex is invalid as it says that Rex is a "sockpuppet" of Merecat. But, even a cursory check of their contributions histories will clearly show that Rex long pre-dated Merecat and Rex himself is absolutely not a sockpuppet. As it stands now, it appears that Rex would like to be unblocked and possibly cede to being deemed to being Merecat so as to be able to quit using the Rex account and instead use the Merecat account. It would seem that the Rex071404 account should be closed in favor of the Merecat account. On top of this, there may be a few loose ends to attend to, but on the face, no editor has made a strong case that Merecat is bad and for that reason, if Rex is Merecat, Rex should be allowed to transition to Merecat and drop the Rex account. On the other hand, if the ArbCom doesn't want to move this forward, then at minimum, Mr. Tibbs should be instructed to stop the witch-hunting. These new users that Tibbs acccuses are not sockuppets. In fact, they are either individual editors or at most, non-transgressing alternate accounts. Rex071404 is not under any sanction or ban that either User:Neutral arbiter or User:Wombdpsw has transgressed. Nor have these editors transgressed wiki rules. They are not disruptive, they are not doing 3RR, etc. There is simply no valid reason to keep fanning the flames of Mr. Tibbs vendettas. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ryan recently accused User:Tbeatty of being "Rex/Merecat". How many times will these two be allowed to accuse non-transgressign editors? It's time to retire the Rex bogeyman. Good ole John Kerry is not being molested and this type of bossing against others by Tibbs and Ryan is bad news. 69.46.20.59 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the checkuser indicated that the users are socks of Merecat/Rex. So the above looks most likely to be yet more mendatious doublespeak from a Merecat sock. Not all of the Merecat edits are directly POV pushing, his latest tactic appears to be an attempt to create an alternative reality by posting pieces to his opponent's user pages accusing them of being biased. (For evidence take a look at this then look at the other edits by this IP, it is hard to see why a newbie editor would immediately acquire Merecat's fixations, the post is a transparent attempt at deception and self justification/pity). Other posts are made to complain about the unfair treatment of Merecat. If the above paragraph was indeed factually accurate and the sockpuppets have not been found to be engaged in 'transgressions' it is hard to see how they would be identified as sock puppets. Clearly their behavior was suspicious enough. Merecat is a revert warrior and POV pusher. Keep the ban. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When will this witch hunt end, We have User:Neutral arbiter, User:Tbeatty, User:Wombdpsw all accused of being Merecat. I am waiting for my turn to pop up on the list considering there evidence ammounts to use of "lets keep it NPOV" summaries. Are any of these even proven sock puppets? I think an admin needs just do a checkuser then state how long rex is banned as he and merecat cant both be sockpuppets. --zero faults talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To extend the witch hunt, you have people accusing everyone of being merecat, its becoming silly almost: User_talk:RyanFreisling#Another_merecat_sock.3F If you touch an article that this group defends you risk being accused. When does this become fishing or even worse an intimidation tactic. --zero faults talk 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny that so many people who all just happen to edit the same set of articles in the same particular direction all use the same language in their pleas here. Of course that does not mean that they are all sockpuppets of a single person but there is a remarkable similarity in their approach. --Gorgonzilla 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dug up this old link about Katefan's original banning of Rex/Mercat and the original RFCU. and some interesting arguements. Some more recent disturbances. And just so everyone knows now theres more talk about this on the admin noticeboard: -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Love the idea that this is a witchhunt. Um. We have CheckUser evidence. Hello! --Woohookitty 10:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont see any of the following banned for being sock puppets: Wombdpsw, Neutral Arbiter, TBeatty or Cal Burrattino. Provide these check user evidence you have please. --zero faults talk 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The tactics this individual or clique use to evade bans show through in their edits. This smacks of being a propaganda campaign. They argue black is white then call people fools and liars for saying it isnt. They make the most tendentious POV edits imaginable then accuse others of POV peddling for reverting their nonsense. If someone was running a for fee Misplaced Pages scrubbing service for GOP pols this is what it would look like. Oh and BTW one does not have to assume good faith after a user is banned for repeated bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd the RfC doesn't say that. But you know that already cause its already been brought up else where. --zero faults 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone up-to-date Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw were all found to be sockpuppets of Rex071404 and have been banned indefinitely.. Also it turned out I'm not a sockpuppet, fancy that. I have no doubt that in the future we will be seeing more sockpuppets of Rex, so everyone keep an eye out. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misread, but is Rex naming more socks here? Does his admission that he only wanted to disrupt Misplaced Pages alter peoples perception of the RfC against his puppet Merecat, which stated as much? Nomen Nescio 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Let it go, will you? If he's really gone, he's gone. If not, it will become obvious sooner or later. Meantime, go edit an article or something. Thatcher131 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Rex071404 has spent 2 years disrupting Misplaced Pages and has said on numerous previous occasions that he was quitting. You're right though, it will become obvious sooner or later when he comes back. After his sockpuppets have caused much conflict just like what happened with Merecat. This isn't something that can be "let go" anymore than Rex's indef bans will be "let go". Which is basically what he's asking for in his "goodbye-note" and even in that note he has the nerve to hold Misplaced Pages hostage: "If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as user:katefan0 did) be honored." I have posted another RFCU regarding Rex's self-admitted sockpuppets. Also see Thatcher's incident report here. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Angel

Is within the prohibited editing by 203.213.77.138, 220.*, 58/56.* AA et al.? 203 has stated on his talk page that he thinks it is not within the prohibited edit set (see his talk page for details) and so I have brought the matter here for clarification. JoshuaZ 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RfAr Blu Aardvark

A question has been asked: "Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him?" I will ask a different question: What are the suitable steps to have the case also include those involved parties who actually hold power, both on Misplaced Pages and the foundation-affiliated #wikipedia, and have potentially abused it. I urge for realistic means to pursue this. Otherwise, the appearence will be that the powerless (Blu) are fair game whereas the powerful (Linuxbeak, Raul) are absolved, shielded, and unaccountable. El_C 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be the case except that the topic is very specific; Should Blu Aardvark be permitted to return to Misplaced Pages? It's not about this whole situation with MSK, Linuxbeak, etc; While the facts leading to his blocks and unblocks are relevant, sanctions against those who took those actions are not. If someone wishes to make a motion to expand the scope of the arbitration case to MSK, Linuxbeak, Raul, and the others involved, and it gets support, fine. Hell, I'd support it. Until that time, there needs to be evidence and motions within the confines of the topic, which is singluar and specific. --Avillia 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in clarification from the Committee about the scope of the case. El_C 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My own feeling is that it is of utmost importance that we sort out the status of Blu Aardvark soon. His is the customary appeal of a community ban to arbcom (there is similar situation up on this page, soon to be opened as a case). That is a case that has already exhausted dispute resolution. While I have my own opinions about Linuxbeak's unblocking and Raul's reapplication of the unblock (twice), I don't think this case is for that. Rather, the current RFC is the appropriate place for that, and any other necessary dispute resolution, and only after those avenues are exhausted, a separate request should be made here. This has been an extraordinary circumstance to be sure, but I don't really think Blu Aardvark's appealing of his ban should be occasion to jumo the dispute resolution process for administrators that are tangentially involved, even if they have shown poor judgment. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This answer leaves me with a strong impression of cronyism for higher-ups, and I'll be withdrawing my participation in protest. I'm not asking for sanctions, but I strongly object to what I feel is a double-standard masquerading as narrow proceduralism. El_C 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we just want to keep the case reasonably simple. Fred Bauder 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Intentions aside, the impression this narrow-sidedness leaves —simplicity over comprehensibility at the expense of accountability— will not address the underlying problems effectively, I fear. But I won't press the point. Still, it leaves one wandering at the whim(?) of who or what are some cases pursued more narrowly or broadly than others. El_C 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We take on bureaucrats when they become insufferable, not every time a controversy arises. Fred Bauder 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I take on the arbitrators when their standards become controversial, not wait till they become insufferable. El_C 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Taking on the arbitrators really is a fool's errand. I wish you luck. --Paleoglot 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic Agnostic

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Titoxd 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Motion for 0RR for Instantnood

Proposal: On any page, Instantnood cannot repeat any edit which has previously been reverted.

Motive: Instantnood needs to be on 0RR or he will be permanently banned from Misplaced Pages under the terms of his current arbitration sanctions. Thus, I'd rather this was not taken as an attempt to place him under further restriction but to salvage the useful edits he is capable of making.

Basis/Facts: All of the findings of fact from Instantnoods arbitration cases still hold true as the basis for this motion.

Further basis/justification: Enough time has gone by to see a distinct pattern erupt. Instantnoods pattern is that he makes an edit, revert wars about it, then goes away (often by banning). He then returns weeks or months later and repeats the same edit. He rotates through articles in this cyclical pattern, maintaining revert wars over one year old. His edits are mostly based on style and presentation, so when he is banned from one article, he moves on and makes the same edit on a different one.

Under his current arbitration sanctions, he has been site-banned at least half a dozen times and page-banned multiple dozens(!) of times. Site-wide bans only work for the duration of the ban. He has been banned for days and weeks at a time and each time he returns and resumes revert warring immediately. He does not learn from being banned.

The only successful method of getting Instantnood to stop revert warring has been page bans. When the page bans expire, he goes right back to revert warring - the very same edits that got him banned in the first place. Misplaced Pages can only function with consensus. Instantnood has never shown that he understands the concept of consensus. A 0RR rule will do two things: force him to discuss issues in order to get consensus and let another editor make the edit, and it will break the extremely disruptive cyclical pattern.

Motion presented by: SchmuckyTheCat 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most often it is user:SchmuckyTheCat (or people he usually agrees with) who first introduced the controversial changes to such pages. I only request for preserving the status quo ante while discussion is taking place (regardless of whether I agree with the status quo ante or not). He never agrees, and always insists on keeping the version he prefers. For some occassions he simply reverts all useful edits I've made, even if I preserve his preferred version. He ignored my notices on his talk pages regarding these blind reverts. He also ignored results from RfC. Actions that are abusing arbitration mechanism should not be encouraged. — Instantnood 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (modified 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
Excuse me, but I believe only arbitrators can introduce such motions. 17:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.4.132 (talk • contribs) 17:07, June 16, 2006 (UTC).

Given especially that the presenter of the motion is a long-time antagonist of IN, this doesn't seem to me to be the best course of faction, procedurally or otherwise. WP:AN/I would probably be a more logical initial venue, given especially that there's been similar discussion there fairly recently. Alai 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Category: